NYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 11 Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2895 times:
I have been thinking about Taiwan lately, and wondering why a small island of 23 million people, supports two major airlines (Eva and China Airlines). It just seems a little excessive. Yes, Taiwan is capitalist and private businesses can do what they want, but there are much larger countries that only support one airline.
Anyone have an historical perspective on why two major airlines, competing on many overlapping routes, are based at TPE?
B747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2850 times:
I think that EVA Air was started because it became obvious that China Airlines was struggling to cope with the rapidly increasing numbers of people going to Taiwan. Evidently the Evergreen Group saw a gap in the market and filled it.
Also, EVA and China Airlines connect a lot of passengers from the US to other destinations in Asia which helps to fill flights.
Also, remember that it is not just about the number of airlines in the country- it is the size of the fleets as well. Cathay have a total of around 100 aircraft (HK only has a pop of 7 mill). EVA and China Airlines combined have a fleet of around 120 aircraft for a pop of 23 million.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3968 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2823 times:
the demand is definitely there, don't forget that only Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore have a higher per capita GDP in east asia than Taiwan. CI was the only international carrier from the late 60s after Civil Air Transports demise, CI was controlled by the government, still is some would say as the majority shareholder is a government controlled organization, then EVA started up as a competitor in the early 90s to break CIs monopoly.
many of the smaller domestic carriers fly international charters and a few regional routes. you could say they had 3 international carriers in the 90s as CI had to start AE to fly certain routes for political reasons.
if direct flights to China ever come about, there would be traffic to support A380s doing TPE-PVG! Over a million people from Taiwan a year travel to mainland China, right now except for occasional charter flights these all have to transit via Hong Kong or Macau.
Pavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2757 times:
What abou UAE (a nation of only 4.5million people), they have Emirates and Etihad?
And Singapore also has one big carrier for its population?
India with nearly a billion people has only a marginal share in aviation
B6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2735 times:
Quoting Pavlin (Reply 3): What abou UAE (a nation of only 4.5million people), they have Emirates and Etihad?
And Singapore also has one big carrier for its population?
India with nearly a billion people has only a marginal share in aviation
Respective populations outside of the western world do not properly showcase aviation's role because India has a higher percentage of poverty than the UAE or Singapore. Most of the people in India probably can not afford air travel at this time. Not true for the citizens of the UAE or Singapore. Countries that you can accurately measure this however are US/Canada the EU nations Japan, Korea, Taiwan... etc. You have to remember that if people can't afford aviation, they aren't gonna fly. China and India are emerging as aviation nations similare to the US though.
Vincewy From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
An important factor, geography, currently a huge chunk of BR/CI's flights to US are filled by Filipinos and Vietnamese, transiting through TPE, until PR and VN get their acts together (order more widebodies, establish more US flights, large hubs of their own in SGN and MNL), they will continue to transit through HKG and TPE to US.
Now, if BR/CI can fly direct to PVG, CAN, and PEK year round, they'll have to get some A380s fast.
Besides BR and CI (Mandarin and Uni-Air are considered subsidiaries), there're also smaller airlines like TransAsia and FAT, unfortunately there's little room of growth for them until year round flights to China are permitted.
Planemannyc From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 989 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
Quoting B6sea (Reply 4): You have to remember that if people can't afford aviation, they aren't gonna fly
That's why AirAsia's tag line is "Now Eveyone Can Fly" -- reduce air fares enough, and people will fly -- same thinking as SWA and Ryanair. Yes, having a population that has disposable income is a big factor, but I am not sure that it's a question of just affording aviation -- it's a question of having affordable airline prices.
Don't forget connecting traffic. Dubai has 1.6 million people, but Emirates carried 12.5 million passengers in 2005. Singapore has a population of 4 million, but SIA carried almost 17 million passengers last year.
B6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2579 times:
Quoting Planemannyc (Reply 6): Yes, having a population that has disposable income is a big factor, but I am not sure that it's a question of just affording aviation -- it's a question of having affordable airline prices.
To address your point, you restated my point, just differently. I mean, in countries such as India, most people still don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on airline tickets each year like Americans do... disposable income has everything to do with it. The people that do have the money will spend it and the ones that don't have it can't. It's really that simple. Countries where people have disposable incomes are the ones with the most developed air travel infrastructures. Countries like India and China are playing catch-up.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22024 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2557 times:
Republic of China/Taiwan is a major economic engine in Asia often referred to as one of the "Asian Tigers"
The country has a very dynamic capitalist market focused on exports which has lead to relative prosperity for its citizens.
Passenger and cargo demand from the island is quite strong allowing it to easily maintain two international airlines along with several smaller domestic carriers.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
AS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5818 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
Vincewy: VN can't exactly pick up a few widebodies and say USA, here we come. I think for an airline in their situation they are doing the best they can. Once the US-VN relationship opens some more, then VN will most surely start least a few VN-US west coast flights. PR on the other can, they actually just did announce a few more USA flights and possible SAN/SEA service by the end of '07.
ASLAX
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
SJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2495 times:
I think CAL safety record a few years back left the door wide open for EVA. I still know people from Taiwan that will not use CAL -- once you got a reputation it is hard to live down. Also, there a large number of people who have immigrated from Taiwan to U.S. --- in summertime you will see these airlines full of people going back to visit their families.
Also, I read somewhere that in 2007 Vietnamese Airline will begin non-stop service to LAX and SFO. The B787 will probably be the perfect plane for those routes.
Blrsea From India, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1227 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2337 times:
I know of many Indians flying China airlines and Eva airlines between India and US. However, the frequencies of these airlines into India is very limited. If they fly to more destinations in India and much more frequently, they might capture a larger market share of India-US west coast market.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31111 posts, RR: 74 Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2324 times:
Quoting B6sea (Reply 4):
Respective populations outside of the western world do not properly showcase aviation's role because India has a higher percentage of poverty than the UAE or Singapore. Most of the people in India probably can not afford air travel at this time. Not true for the citizens of the UAE or Singapore.
While certainly true that most Indians cannot afford to fly, India has a middle/upper class of over 300,000,000 (greater than the population of the US) that can afford to fly.
COSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1473 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2128 times:
Yes EVA and CI, and KE are Major Players in the US Philippines, and Vietnam market with about 1 million Philipine and 1 Million Vietnamese born residents in the US and their families..NW and PAL can haul them all, Plus the Taiwan/China and Thailand markets...
Ryanair!!! From Singapore, joined Mar 2002, 4652 posts, RR: 27 Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2114 times:
Here we go again with the argument of just because a city has a large proportion of population from a certain country, an airline should be represented.
Don't forget that these populations are largely migrant workers ie. not loaded with a lot of money. Thus, airlines that fly these routes probably do it at a loss. To have demand is one thing, but having sufficient yields to stop returns from going into the reds is another.
Airlines are businesses that are answerable to shareholders, not charity organisations.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
Brenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1446 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
Unless I'm much mistaken, EVA is still primarily a CARGO airline. EVA's cargo capacity is much larger than the passenger fleet -- especially since 10 of EVA's 15 B744's are Combis.
EVA was started to complement Evergreen Shipping's massive fleet of container ships.
According to EVA's website, it has 14 MD-11 freighters, 3 744Fs and 10 744 Combis.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3968 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
Quoting Brenintw (Reply 15): Unless I'm much mistaken, EVA is still primarily a CARGO airline.
it may well be that cargo is a very large part, maybe even the majority of their revenue, but they are also a major passenger carrier. CI still beats them on cargo
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3968 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1883 times:
if both of them can opperate profitably, why question it. I'd be more inclined to look at the United States and their airlines that can't make money and wonder why there are so many.
I for instance, am flying EVA from LAX-TPE-HKG this spring.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1381 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 983 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, 
From India, joined exactly 8 years ago today! 
, 1227 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31111 posts, 
From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1473 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Mar 2002, 4652 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
